Who is Russell Piper?

Russell Piper is a member at the Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal with 58 decisions on record from 1994 to 2005. Key areas include administrative law, other tribunals, environmental law.

What tribunal does Russell Piper sit on?

Russell Piper sits on the Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

What areas of law does Russell Piper decide?

Russell Piper's most common areas include Administrative Law (55 decisions), Other Tribunals (48 decisions), Environmental Law (35 decisions). Russell Piper has handled 58 decisions across 4 areas.

How many decisions has Russell Piper made?

Russell Piper has 58 decisions on record from 1994 to 2005.

Who frequently appears before Russell Piper?

Representatives who frequently appear before Russell Piper include Joanne Cook, Peter Klijn, John Kuntze.

/Adjudicator

minicounsel

Russell Piper — Member

Russell Piper

Member·Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal·Since 1994

cases · 12 yrs · OAFRAAT

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Member· 54panel member· 2member· 1Panel Member· 1

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalJul 9, 1997

Application to appoint an engineer to vary drainage assessment granted.

The Corporation of the Township of Dawn applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Leason Drain.

The Township of Camden had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application, permitting the appointment of an engineer to vary the assessment.

Leason Drain (Re), 1997 ONAFRAAT 27

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalMar 19, 1997

Drainage assessment appeal dismissed; engineer's calculations found fair and appropriate.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision concerning the assessments for the Leach West Drain 1996.

The appellant argued that the assessment of approximately 50% of the costs to his property was too high, as the flooding on his land was caused by runoff from upstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drain would significantly reduce flooding and erosion on the appellant's property, providing a substantial benefit.

Finding no errors in the engineer's calculations, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessments.

Richard Dwornikiewicz v. Township of Norwich, 1997 ONAFRAAT 5

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 21, 1996

Drainage construction appeal resolved by ordering completion of warranty work and assessing costs against obstructive appellants.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act concerning the quality of construction of the Trudell Drain No. 2.

They raised several complaints including erosion, potential pipe damage, and incomplete outlet structures.

The Tribunal found that the municipality and contractor were ready to complete the necessary warranty work but were prevented from doing so by the appellants, who refused access.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to complete the repairs, directed the appellants to provide access, and assessed $2,000 in costs against the appellants for unnecessarily prolonging the dispute.

Trudell Drain #2 (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 19

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 18, 1996

Drainage assessment appeal denied; engineer's methodology for allocating costs between municipality and agricultural lands found fair.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment proposed in an engineer's report for the Howick Drain 11 Extension, arguing that the municipality caused the drainage problem by filling in a low area for an arena parking lot and that the agricultural lands did not benefit from the proposed drain.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the proposed project was a reasonable technical solution and that the engineer's methodology for calculating the assessments was fair.

The appeal was denied and the assessments were upheld.

Howick Number 11 Drain Extension (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 18

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 2, 1996

Appeal of municipal drain engineer's report dismissed; appellant's alternative proposal lacked sufficient investigation.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the Norman Heights Municipal Drain, arguing that the proposed drainage works should be modified, the allowances were insufficient, and the assessments were improper.

The appellant proposed a low-cost alternative using an existing tile drainage system.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant's alternative lacked sufficient investigation into the outlet's suitability, and that the engineer's allowances and assessments were reasonable and unbiased.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent municipality.

Norman Heights Municipal Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 16

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 2, 1996

Drainage assessment upheld as fair and reasonable; engineer's methodology for calculating outlet liability accepted.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming their assessment for the Domm Municipal Drain, Branch D. They argued their assessment was too high compared to a neighbouring property, asserting that the neighbour's tile drainage contributed to the water flow.

The respondent municipality's engineer testified about the methodology used to calculate benefit and outlet liability, which factored in acreage, land class, distance, and profile.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methodology consistent and the resulting assessment fair and reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

Domm Municipal Drain, Branch D (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 17

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalSep 5, 1996

Drainage appeal allowed in part to order removal of temporary sediment traps per engineer's specifications.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of the Branconnier Drain, alleging defects including bank slumping, an obstructed culvert, lack of seeding, and unremoved sediment traps.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the bank slippage, culvert placement, and lack of seeding did not constitute construction defects, as they either complied with the engineer's report or were maintenance issues.

However, the Tribunal found a deficiency regarding the temporary sediment traps, which had not been removed as required by the specifications.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent municipality to complete the removal of the accumulated sediments and temporary sediment traps within six weeks.

Branconnier Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 15

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalMay 29, 1996

Tribunal endorsed minutes of settlement regarding municipal drain and ordered modification of provisional by-law.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report on the Wallis Municipal Drain.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to endorse the minutes of settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the municipality's clerk to modify the provisional by-law to reflect the settlement and circulate it to affected owners with notice of their right to appeal.

Wallis Municipal Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 12

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalMay 28, 1996

Appeals regarding municipal drain assessments and watershed boundaries dismissed.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Oake Branch of the Wiles Municipal Drain.

They challenged the watershed boundary and the assessments levied against their lands.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the engineer's report provided an appropriate solution to the drainage problem and that the minor adjustment to the outlet assessment that might result from changing the watershed boundary would be offset by the cost of determining it.

The appeals were dismissed.

Wiles Municipal Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 11

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalMay 16, 1996

Tribunal granted municipality's unopposed application to appoint an engineer to vary a drainage assessment.

The Township of Raleigh applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Gregory Drain.

The Township of Harwich confirmed it had no objections.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal granted the application, permitting the appointment of an engineer, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Gregory Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 10

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalApr 12, 1996

Appeal of engineer's report and drainage assessment dismissed; incorporation of private tile into municipal drain upheld.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed Minnema Drain.

The appellant argued that the drain should be modified to separate his private tile from the municipal drain, eliminate a grassed waterway, or take an alternate route, and that his assessment was too high.

The Tribunal found that incorporating the private tile was a reasonable solution, the grassed waterway was necessary for erosion control, and the engineer's assessment methodology was correct.

The appeals were dismissed.

Rein Minnema v. Township of Ekfrid, 1996 ONAFRAAT 7

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalMar 28, 1996

Drainage assessment redistributed to better reflect the relative benefits of the drainage works.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the Sheahan Municipal Drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that his property was assessed too high and that the drainage works should be modified.

The modification issues were resolved during the hearing and the section 48(1) appeal was withdrawn.

On the assessment issue, the Tribunal found that the appellant and another property owner were assessed too high for the increased cost of a sealed-joint pipe through their bush lots, while another property owner (Sunrise) was underassessed for the benefit of an improved direct outlet.

The Tribunal ordered a redistribution of the benefit assessments, increasing Sunrise's assessment and reducing the assessments of the appellant and others.

Sheahan Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 6

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalMar 28, 1996

Tribunal amended drainage by-law to reflect as-built location of works following construction error.

The Township of Aldborough applied under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend a by-law to reflect the as-built location of a drainage works, which deviated from the planned location due to a construction error.

The affected landowner and the County of Elgin consented to the as-built location.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that while the situation was a construction error rather than a gross error in the report, it was appropriate to use its authority under section 51(1) to order an amendment to the report and by-law to avoid the cost of rebuilding the works.

Elgin Road 6 Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 5

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalMar 19, 1996

Tribunal granted the municipality permission to appoint an engineer to vary a drainage works assessment.

The Township of Hay applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Koehler Municipal Drain.

The Village of Hensall confirmed it had no objections.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal granted the application and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Koehler Municipal Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 4

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalDec 6, 1995

Appeal of engineer's report on municipal drain dismissed; land allowances and buffer strip maintenance requirements upheld.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report on the McVittie Municipal Drain Improvement, arguing that the allowances for land used for a buffer strip were inadequate and that the obligation to maintain the buffer strip should be modified.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the land value used to calculate the allowance was appropriate and that the requirement for the landowner to maintain a permanent cover crop on the buffer strip was reasonable.

McVittie Drain (Re), 1995 ONAFRAAT 34

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 16, 1995

Drainage assessment for future maintenance reduced by 50% due to downstream location and buffer strip.

The appellant appealed the benefit assessment levied against his lands for the future maintenance of a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that his assessment of approximately 25% of the maintenance costs for the reach over his lands was excessive compared to a previous report.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was too high given the appellant's location at the downstream end of the drain and his establishment of a grass buffer strip to protect the banks.

The Tribunal ordered a 50% reduction in the benefit assessments for the appellant and a neighbouring property, with the reduction added to the upstream outlet assessments.

Big Creek Drain 1994 (Re), 1995 ONAFRAAT 21

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalSep 5, 1995

MNR lacks jurisdiction under the Fisheries Act to demand modifications to municipal drains constructed under the Drainage Act.

The Township of Morris initiated an improvement to the Warwick Municipal Drain.

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) objected, claiming the open portion of the drain was a fish habitat and its enclosure would violate the Fisheries Act.

The Township applied to amend the Engineer's Report to leave the portion open, while the appellants withdrew their appeal.

The Tribunal held that the MNR, acting as an agent for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has no jurisdiction to demand modifications to drainage works constructed under the provincial Drainage Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the Township's application to amend the report, ordered the construction to proceed as originally designed, and ordered the MNR to pay $500 in costs for the delay and expenses caused by its jurisdictional claims.

Warwick Municipal Drain Improvement 1994 (Re), 1995 ONAFRAAT 19

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalJul 11, 1994

Drainage assessment against non-watershed lands reduced to zero as watershed owners must provide sufficient outlet.

The appellants appealed their assessment for the repair and improvement of the Gordon Smith Drain.

Their lands, located outside the drain's watershed, experienced flooding due to backup flows from the Ruscom River overtopping the drain's banks.

The engineer had assessed them a Cutoff Benefit for the proposed control structure.

The Tribunal held that the duty to provide a sufficient outlet rests entirely on the assessed owners within the watershed.

Since the flooding was caused by an insufficient outlet, the costs to remedy it must be borne by the watershed owners.

The appeal was allowed and the appellants' assessments were reduced to zero.

Bruce Armstrong, Edwin Armstrong and William A. Olson v. Township of Rochester, 1994 ONAFRAAT 5

Page 3 of 3 (58 cases)

advocate for Mr. Mervin Martin

Clifford StephensAgent
1 appearance

advocate for the appellant

Harry DenHaanAgent
1 appearance

an assessed owner

Al McGregorSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donald SkipperSelf-represented
1 appearance

appellant

Joanne CookSelf-represented
2 appearances
Frank OtelloSelf-represented
1 appearance
Freda DippelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gunther SchachtSelf-represented
1 appearance
Harry RowleySelf-represented
1 appearance
Ivan HammondSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jim StephensonSelf-represented
1 appearance
John VanEeden PetersmanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joseph StephensonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Keith KlagesSelf-represented
1 appearance
Norm TrudgeonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Orland DippelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Patricia SalisburySelf-represented
1 appearance
Ray HunkingSelf-represented
1 appearance
Roger PannabeckerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ron ChristieSelf-represented
1 appearance
Tibor RibiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ursula KaralusSelf-represented
1 appearance
Vernon DippelSelf-represented
1 appearance
William FrancisSelf-represented
1 appearance

appellant in person

Hank AllenSelf-represented
1 appearance
John GarveySelf-represented
1 appearance

appellants

C. M. H. ChurchillSelf-represented
1 appearance
Doug JenereauxSelf-represented
1 appearance
Hazel AtkinsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Irene WawrowSelf-represented
1 appearance
John D. HillSelf-represented
1 appearance
Les WawrowSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed landowner

Anthony NadalinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Bob GroszeiblSelf-represented
1 appearance
Daryll BettsSelf-represented
1 appearance
David GroszeiblSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donald BellSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donald GreenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Earle GraySelf-represented
1 appearance
Fred LoachSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joe GroszeiblSelf-represented
1 appearance
John FarrowSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ken LeddySelf-represented
1 appearance
Mary SimpsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mrs. Betty SimpsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Newton ThomasSelf-represented
1 appearance
Robert ReidSelf-represented
1 appearance
Roger PannabeckerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ron Sharpe Sr.Self-represented
1 appearance
Stuart HighamSelf-represented
1 appearance
William VanVlietSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed landowners

Don LounsburySelf-represented
1 appearance
Ernst Von AllwoerdenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Randy Van Den HeedeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Roger MarsdenSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed owner

Albertine CroftSelf-represented
1 appearance
Bernard KordyjakaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Bernice O’HearSelf-represented
1 appearance
Bon RicheterSelf-represented
1 appearance
Chester DannSelf-represented
1 appearance
Commodore AllenSelf-represented
1 appearance
David FleckSelf-represented
1 appearance
Doris ToeppSelf-represented
1 appearance
Douglas SherkSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gerry ShaubelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Glenn PfistererSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joseph BellonteSelf-represented
1 appearance
Louise LordSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marjorie AlbeeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ray LampmanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Richard BeauchampSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rick BradySelf-represented
1 appearance
Robert StrettonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rodney McCabeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Stewart McPhersonSelf-represented
1 appearance

assisting the appellant

Marielle KlijnAgent
1 appearance

counsel for the respondent, the City of Kawartha Lakes

Rosalie EvansCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to Mr. Leddy

Mike MitchellCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the appellant, Donald Bailey

George ReynoldsCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the Township of Perth South

Gerry CullitonCounsel
1 appearance

Drainage Superintendent for the respondent the City of Port Colborne

René LandryAgent
1 appearance

drainage superintendent for the Township of Delhi

Chris ThompsonAgent
1 appearance

Engineer

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

engineer who prepared the Report, for the Municipality of Leamington

Ed DriesAgent
1 appearance

for 1060008 Ontario Ltd.

Doug VollmershausenAgent
1 appearance

for Fernand Gauthier

Garnet McDiarmidAgent
1 appearance

for herself

Catherine CocchioSelf-represented
1 appearance

for himself

Nick WallSelf-represented
1 appearance
Brian BearssSelf-represented
1 appearance
Bruce ArmstrongSelf-represented
1 appearance
Edwin ArmstrongSelf-represented
1 appearance
Fernand GauthierSelf-represented
1 appearance
John SoenenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ken BearssSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mervin MartinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Robert JacksonSelf-represented
1 appearance
William A. OlsonSelf-represented
1 appearance

for M. and H. Ostromecki

Mr. UngaroCounsel
1 appearance

for Maria Janzen

Suzanna JanzenAgent
1 appearance

for Mr. Peter Van Kruistum, appellant

Bradley W. StoneCounsel
1 appearance

for Mr. Russell Wilson, appellant

Paul AmyCounsel
1 appearance

for Robert and David Groszeibl, Joseph and Elizabeth Groszeibl, and Mr. William Van Vliet

Christopher WilsonCounsel
1 appearance

for Tampa Farms Ltd., K. Fowler, B.&M. Vandenberg, B. Vandenberg, H. Stoelinga, R. Graham, F.&R. Graham, J.&R. Graham, Oakwood Agromart Ltd., 1035485 Ontario Ltd., G. Butterworth et al., J. Everson, J. Garland, J.&J. Hickson and J. Hickson

William TurvilleCounsel
1 appearance

for Tampa Farms Ltd., K. Fowler, B.&M. Vandenberg, B. Vandenberg, H. Stoelinga, R.&L. Graham and J.&R. Graham

William TurvilleCounsel
1 appearance

for the appellant

Peter KlijnSelf-represented
2 appearances
Richard DwornikiewiczSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sheldon PettleCounsel
1 appearance
Bob WieringaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Dennis ShandAgent
1 appearance
Frank ScottSelf-represented
1 appearance
Margaret VanceSelf-represented
1 appearance
Neil CockwellSelf-represented
1 appearance
Paul CoureyCounsel
1 appearance
Rein MinnemaSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Appellant

David LendvaySelf-represented
1 appearance

for the appellant, Landmark

David SeedCounsel
1 appearance

for the appellant, Medallion Holsteins Ltd.

Jay CarterAgent
1 appearance

for the appellant, Mr. Carl King

Paul CoureyCounsel
1 appearance

for the appellant Mr. Martin Van Geffen

Paul CoureyCounsel
1 appearance

for the appellants

Herbert SonnenbergSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joanne VergeerSelf-represented
1 appearance
John VergeerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marianne HatchSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michael G. CloutierSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michael L. FowlerCounsel
1 appearance
Robert F. HatchSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Appellants

Numerous appellantsSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the appellant, S. Barbarino

W. L. ScrivenAgent
1 appearance

for the appellant, Thames Bend Farms Ltd.

Rosemary SteinAgent
1 appearance

for the City of Port Colborne

Bryon WiebeAgent
1 appearance
Cam MilneAgent
1 appearance
Rene LandryAgent
1 appearance

for the Municipality

Gerry LeggAgent
1 appearance
John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance
Mike DeVosAgent
1 appearance
Ron SwainCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondent, Municipality of Southwest Middlesex

Dennis McCreadyAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the City of Kawartha Lakes

Valerie M’GarryCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Municipality of West Elgin

Dennis R. McCreadyAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Town of North Perth

Paul ElstonAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh

J. A. McBrideAgent
1 appearance
J. R. DicksonAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Blandford-Blenheim

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent the Township of Ekfrid

John SprietAgent
1 appearance
Michael DeVosAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Hay

Kimberly EvansCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondent the Township of North Dorchester

Paul ElstonAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Norwich

John KuntzeAgent
2 appearances

for the respondent the Township of Sullivan

David GrahlmanAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Wainfleet

John R. SprietAgent
1 appearance
Ralph BradleyAgent
1 appearance

for the Township of Burford Roads Department, appellant

Robert ParsonsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Township of Norfolk

John R. SprietAgent
1 appearance

for the Township of Norwich

J. W. KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

for the Township of Wainfleet

George BanksCounsel
1 appearance

on behalf of Dale and Linda Kramer, assessed owners

James RailtonAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of Donna Whitlock, appellant

Leonard WhitlockSelf-represented
1 appearance

on behalf of Joan Dann, assessed owner

Christopher DannAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of Larry Lampman, assessed owner

Ronald J. LampmanAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Appellants P. & H. Dorsch

Keith JohnsonAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources and other assessed owners

M. MalhiotAgent
1 appearance
R. BennettAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent

Garth NoeckerAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the City of Port Colborne

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Respondent, the City of Port Colborne

Bryan WiebeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Wallace

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the Township of Adelaide

Mike DeVosAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the Township of Ahfield-Colborne-Wawanosh

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Delhi

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of East Wawanosh

Andrew McBrideAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the Township of Fullarton

David JohnsonAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Melancthon

Don McNaltyAgent
1 appearance
Tom PridhamAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Normanby

Wm. MannerowAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the Township of South-West Oxford

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of West Nissouri

Mike DeVosAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Zorra

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

party to the hearing

Eunice BosomworthSelf-represented
1 appearance
John BosomworthSelf-represented
1 appearance

presented the Report

E. P. DriesAgent
1 appearance
J. A. McBrideAgent
1 appearance

principal of Mancini Homes, the appellant

Angelo ManciniAgent
1 appearance

representing Daryll and Lyle Betts (Roll No. 40-090) and Darta Farms Ltd (Roll No. 40-075), Walter and Katherine Betts (Roll Nos. 40-074 and 40-092), assessed upstream landowners

Andy McBrideAgent
1 appearance

witness

Ronald BaileyAgent
1 appearance

witness to the Tribunal

Tim BellonteSelf-represented
1 appearance

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

0.4

cases/mo

OAFRAAT58(100%)

Decision types

appeal

motion

Page 3 of 3 (58 cases)